Are Regional Development Policies Needed?

ARE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT P O L I C I E S NEEDED?

N i l e s H a n s e n

A u g u s t 1 9 7 6

Research Memoranda are interim reports o n rcscarch bcillg co11- ducted b y the International Institcte for Applied Systcnls A~lalysis, and as such receive only limited scientific review. Vicws or opi11- ions contained herein d o not necessarily rcprcsent those o l the Institute o r o f the National Member Organizations s u p p o r t i ~ l g thc Institute.

Preface

One of the research tasks within IIASA's Human Settlements and Services Research area is Human Settlement Systems: Devel- opment Processes and Strategies. This paper critically examines development strategies and goals within the context of recent changes in human settlement patterns in the United States.

Although the focus is on this country, the issues raised also are being debated in other countries with widely varying social and economic systems.

Other Papers in the IIASA Series .- on Human S ~ I - t l e m e n t .- Systems:

Development Processes and Strategies

1.

Peter Hall, Niles Hansen and Harry Swain, Urban Systems:

A

Comparative ,.lvlalysis of Structur~c-, Changc and Public Policy, RM-75-35, July 1975.

2. Niles Hansen,

A

Critique of Economic Regional?:zations of' the United Statcs, RR-75-32, September 1975.

3. Niles Hansen, International L'oopcratlon and Regional Policies Within Nations, RM-75-48, September 1975.

4. Peter Hall, Niles Hansen and Harry Swain, Status and Future Directions of the Comparative Urhan Region Study:

A

Summary of' Workshop Conclusions, IiM--75-59, November 1975.

5. Niles Hansen, Growth St~zategies and Nurrcan Sett lemcnt Systems in Developing Countr~ies, RM-76-2, January 1976.

6. Niles Hansen, Systenls Approaches to F!urlan Scttlenients, FW-76-3, January 1 9 76.

7. Allan Pred, The Inter2crbazl I'ransnlissiorl of Growth in Aduarzce~!

Economies: Empirical Findings I'~rsus Rsgional Planning Assumptions, RR-76-4, March 1976.

8.

Niles Hansen, The Economic Developn!ef~t of B o r d e ~ ~ Regions, RM-76-37, April 1976.

9. Piotr Korcelli,

The

Human Settlement Systems Study:

Suggested

Research Directions, RM-76-38, April 1976.

10. Niles Hansen, Alsace-Baden-Basel: Economic Integration in a Border Region, RM-76-51, June 1976.

1 1 .

Peter Nijkamp, Spatial Mobility and Settlement Patterns: An Application of a Behavioral Entropy, RM-76-45, forthcoming.

Abstract

Recent shifts in population and economic activity from the Northeast and North Central parts of the United States to the South and West, and from large metropolitan areas to smaller towns and rural areas have revived interest in the formula- tion of federal regional policies to deal with problems asso- ciated with these changes.

The present paper critically examines the rationale for territorial distribution policies and suggests that it probably is premature to set specific goals at the national level. Never- theless, it would be valuable to have a Regional Development

Agency at the federal level to coordinate a learning process

involving the entire federal system.

ARE REGIONAL DEmLOPMENT POLICIES NEEDED?

I n t r o d u c t i o n

R e c e n t s h i f t s i n p o p u l a t i o n a n d e c o n o m i c a c t i v i t y from t h e N o r t h e a s t a n d N o r t h C e n t r a l p a r t s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o t h e S o u t h a n d W e s t , a n d f r o m l a r g e m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s t o s m a l l e r t o w n s a n d r u r a l a r e a s h a v e r e v i v e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e f o r m u l a - t i o n o f f e d e r a l r e g i o n a l p o l i c i e s t o d e a l w i t h p r o b l e m s a s s o - c i a t e d w i t h t h e s e c h a n g e s .

The p r e s e n t p a p e r c r i t i c a l l y e x a m i n e s t h e x - a t i o n a l e f o r t e r r i t o r i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n p o l i c i e s a n d s u g g ~ s - t s t h a t i t p r o b a b l y i s p r e m a t u r e t o s e t s p e c i f i c g o a l s a t t h e n a t i o n a l l e v e l .

N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t would b e v a l u a b l e t o h a v e a R c ( ; ~ i o n ; ~ i l D e v e l o p m e n t Agency a t t h e f e d e r a l l e v e l t o c o o r d i . n a t . e a l e a r i - i i i ~ g p r o c e s s

i n v o l v i n g t h e e n t i r e f e d e r a l s y s t e n ~ .

P o s t w a r P o l i c i e s

F e d e r a l P o l i c y f o r p r o m o t i n g e c o n o m i c d e v c l o p r a c n t i n l a r g e l a g g i n g r e g i o n s i s b a s e d p r i m a r i 1 . y o n two l e g i s l a t i v e tic t s p a s s e d i n 1 9 6 5 : t h e A p p a l a c h i a r ~ R e g i c n a l Development A c t arid t h e P u b l i c Works a n d Economic D2velopment A c t . D u r i n g t h e ] . a t e 1 9 6 0 s i t

a p p e a r e d t h a t t h e " i ~ e w r e g i o n a l i s m " embodied i n the Ecorionic D e v e l o p m e n t A d m i n i s t r a t i o i l , t h e A p p a l - a c h i a n R e g i o n a l . C o m m i s s i o n , a n d s i m i l a r c o m m i s s i o n s f o r f i v e o t h e r r n u l t i s t a - t e d e v e l o p m e n t r e g i o n s would a t l a s t r e s u l t i n a majox: c o m p r e h e n s i v e a p p r o a c h t o t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s o f l c r g e r e c j i o n s e x p e r i e n c i n g h i g h unemploy- m e n t a n d low p e r c a p i t a incorne (Hanseri, 1 9 7 4 )

.

U n f o r t u n a t e l y

t h i s p r o m i s e was n e v e r f u l f i l l e d . A l t h o u g h t h e r e l e v a n t a g e n c i e s s t i l l e x i s t , t h e y h a v e r e c e i v e d r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e f u n d i n g i n

r e c e n t y e a r s . D e s p i t e some ~ ~ t l s t r u c t i v e i n n o v a t i o n s - - e s p e c i a l l y by t h e A p p a l a c h i a n R e g i o n a l Commission w i t h r e s p e c t t o human

r e s o u r c e d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s - - t h e r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s t e n d e d t o b e e q u a t e d w i t h " a n t i - p o v e r t y " p r o g r a m s , a n d a s s u c h t h e y w e r e s e v e r e l y c u r t a i l e d by t h e Nixon a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .

S i - n c e t h e S e c o n d World War t h e r o l e o f t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n - ment h a s become c r i t i c a l i n d e a l i n g w i t h p r o b l e r ~ s o f m e t r o p o l i t a r . a r e a s . P r o b a b l y t h e m o s t p r e s s i n g i n t r a u r b a n p r o b l e m i n t h e

U n i t e d S.L.at:es i s t h a t o f m i n o r i t y g h e t t o s . However, e v e n i f t h e complex :i.ssl~es o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d s l u m p o v e r t y w e r e t o b e

solved,

k - h e ~ e s t i l l would b e a rlcirnber o f m a j o r p r o b l e m s f a c i n g t h e l a r g e z i t i e s . Sconornic o b s a l e s c e n c e and d e c a y i n downtown a r e a s i s w i d e s p r e a d ; t.hough r e l a t e d t o t h e p r o b l e m o f c e n t r a l c i t y y k ~ e c.:t cs

,

t h i s phenomenon would p r o b a b l y h a v e a r i s e n i n a n y c a s e b e c a u s e o f t h e r a p i d s u b u r h a n i z a t i o n o f m e t r o p o l i t a n popu- l a t i o n and e c o n c ~ m i c a c t i v i t y . T r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n i s y e t a n o t h e r . c h a i - l e n g e t o t h e c i t i e s , a n d c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e g e n e r a l p o l l u t i o n of t h e : n ~ t r o p o .i .i t a l i e n v i r o n r 9 e n t . The f a i l u r e o f m e t r o p o l i t a n areas t o r e s p o n d a d e c l a a t e l y t o t h e s e probl.ems i.s r e l a t e d t o t h e f r a g m e n - t a t i o n o f g o v i r n m c n t aed f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t o r i v a l i n d e p e n - d e n t j u r i s d j - c t i c ~ n s . I n 1 9 6 2 , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e a v e r a g e S t a n d a r d M e t r 0 p o l i t . n ~ S t . a t : i s t i c a l A r e a (SMSA) c c n t a i n e d e i g h t y - s e v e n l o c a l g o v e r ~ r r ~ e r i t un-l?:s ( , s r c v e n t y - s i x o f w h i c h c o u l d l e v y p r o p e r t y t a x e s )

,

c o m p r i s i n g 'I . 5 c:c~unt.ies, t w e a t y m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , t w e l v e t o w n s h i p s , t w e n t y - . e i g h t

school

_{d j} s t r i c t s , a n d t w e n t y - s i x s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s

( H o o v e ! ~ . , 1 9 7 1 ,

P ,

5 ' 7 i i j

.

E v e n t h o u g h t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t h a s t h e f i - s e a l capacil-..y t o m a k e g r a n t s f o r h o u s i n g , w e l f a r e , e d u c a t i o n , t r a n s p o r t 3 . t j . o n I a n d :::,nununity f a c i l i t i e s , a s y e t n o c l e a r a n d

c o n s i s t e n t g o a l s a n d s t r a t e g i e s h a v e b e e n f o r m u l a t e d t o g u i d e 1 n e t r o p o l . i t a n d e v e l o p m e n t ~ o l i c i e s .

N a t i o n a l I ; ~ k a n Growth P o . L i 2 -- - . - . .. . . .. - .- .- .- - - .. . . -- ,

D e s ~ : . i t e W h i t e House r e ] - u c t a r l c e t o f o r m u l a t e p o l i c i e s c o n - c e r n i n g t h r s p a t i a l a l l o c a t i o n o f p o p u l a t i o n a n d e c o n o m i c

a c t i v i t y , t h e C o n g r e s s , i n t h e H o u s i n g a n d Urban D e v e l o p m e n t A c t o f 1 9 7 0 , d e c l a r e d t h a t a n a t i o n a l - u r b a n g r o w t h s h o u l d b e d e v e l . o p e d . The a c t p r o v i d e d f o r submission by t h e P r e s i d e n t t o C o n g r e s s o f a b i e n n i a l r e p o r t on u r b a n g r o w t h . The r e p o r t s h o u l d assist i n t h e c r e a t i o n of a n a t i o n a l u r b a n g r o w t h p o l i c y a n d p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d d a t a r e l e v a n t t o u r b a n g r o w t h . It s h o u l d a l s o c o n t a i n a d i s c u s s i o n o f u r b a n p r o b l e m s a n d e f f o r t s b e i n g mcde ~t a l l lievels o f g o v e r n m e n t t o d e a l w i t h t h e m , a s w e l l a s r e c o r r a ~ ~ e n d a t i o n s f o r p r o g r a m s r e l a t e d t o n a t i o n a l u r b a n g r o w t h p o l i c y .

The first (1972) growth report was a watered-down compendium of data that implicitly denied the desirability of such a policy.

The document reflected the administration's lack or enthusiasm for any active federal role in shaping a national urban policy, and, conversely, i.ts preference for state and local initiatives in this regard. Similarly, the President's 1974 growth report was lacking in specific recommended policies and programs.

In any event, the 1970 act was a rather poor guide for developing a national strategy. By promising something for

everyone--whether in central cities, suburbs, smaller communities, local neighborhoods, or rural areas--and by failing even to hint at priorities, it could be as readily approved as _incst flag and motherhood bills. It also could be argued th:jt by creating the appearance that a spatial development policy was

in

the process of bei-ng formed, the whole exercise may actually have hindered serious debate about, and the careful articulat.ion of, an opera- tionally feasible growth strategy. Be that as it may, the act nevertheless reflected a widespre3.d mis-p~r.c:ep t io;.: ofr -the b,, ic spatial economic and demoqraphic cl~anges taking place in the United States.

The data in Table

1

show that in botll the 1950s and the 1960s the population qrowth rate in metropolitan areas substan- tially exceeded that in nonmet,ropolitan areas, Dur j ncj the 1950s, metropolitan areas gained about 25 million residents whereas the nonmetropo1j:tan gain was only 3 million i-nhabitants; the corres- ponding values for the 1960s were approxirnately 20 mil.lion and

4

million. By the end of t.he 1960s there was serious concern in many quarters that something be done by i.:he federal govern- ment to promote "more balanced" geographic growth patterns.

Otherwise, it was argued, the nation would b? plagued by rural decline in much of the count.ry as well as a host of metropolitan problems aggravated by the influx of migral-lts fi-om nolllnetropoli- tan areas (President's National Advisory Co11~fil.ssion, 1967; U.S.

Department of Agriculture, 1968; National Goals Research Staff, 1970; Commission on Population Growth, 1971). Thus,

a

study of 1971 legislative and executive actions concluded that "perhaps the most active component of national urban growth pol-icy in

Table 1. Pcpulation of the United States, by

Mstropolitan-Nonmetropolitan

Residence, 1950-1975 (in thousands, except per cent). '~11 Data refer to the areas of the 243 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined in 1970 census publications. 'F'or comparability with data from the Current Population Survey, figures from the 1970 census have been adjusted to exclude inmates of institutions and members of the Armed Forces living in barracks and similar types of quarters.

I

Average Anr-ual Per Cent Chanqe 1

1

1950 1960 to to 1960 1970 1975 1.7 1.3 0.9 2.3 1.5 0.7 1.1 0.6

-0.6

3.8 2.4 1.8 0.5 0.7 1.2

1

t- 7-1

I

i

r I TOTAL I ~etropolitan iireasl 94,579

1

37,058 141,993 In Central Cities

I

53,696 59r947 63,797 62,876 60,902 Sources:

U.S.

Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1972, U-S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972, p. 16.

--

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No.

252

"Population Profile of the United States, 1975,"

U.S.

Govern- ment Prj :ing Office, Washington, D.C., 1976,

p.

23.

Outside Central Cities ~nmeA~~politan Areas I

i 74,182 62,761

I

81,091 66,690

75,622 63,793

40,883 59,648 56,747 59,728

1971 w a s c o n c e r n f o r t h e d e v e l o p r n e r l t o f s ~ r , d l l e r u r b a n c e n t e r s a s a n o p t i o n t o p r e s e n t r n e t r o p o l i t a n cjrowth t r e ~ i d s ( B e c k m a n , 1 9 7 2 , p . 2 3 2 ) . " I m p l i c i t h e r e i s t h e n o t i o n t h a t b i g c i t i e s a r e t o o b i g a n d g r o w i n g e v e n l a r g e r w h i l e r u r a l a r e a s l a n g u i s h . T h e

same p o l i c y o r i e n t a t i o n s t i l l a p p e a r e d a s l a t e a s 1 9 7 5 i n a major r e v i e w o f n a t i o n a l u r b a n g r o w t h p o l i c y ( B e c k n ~ a n , 1 9 7 5 ) . B u t , a s o f t e n h a p p e n s t o t h e g e n e r a l s , s t r a t e g i e s t h a t w e r e d e v i s e d i n l i g h t o f t h e l a s t w a r h a v e b e e n r e n d e r e d o b s o l e t e b y c u r r e n t r e a l i t i e s .

D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f ^- P o p u l a t i o n -- - a n d j2coi1omic ^-- A . c t i v i . t y

R e c e n t d a t a f r o m t h e C u r r e n t P o p u l a t i o n S u r v e y o f t h e U.S.

B u r e a u o f t h e C e n s u s r e v e a l c o r l s i s t e n t t e n d e n c i e s i n t h e e v o l u t i o n o f popul-at ion b y r n e t r o p o l i t a i i a n d n o n m e t r o y i o l i t a n r e s i d e n c e (see T a b l e 1 ) . O v e r t h e p a s t t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s t h e g r o w t h r a t e o f t o t a l n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n h a s d e c l i n e d . H o w e v e r , t h e g r o w t h r a t e o f m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s h a s d e c l i i i e d eve11 Inore r a p i d i y . I n t h e

1 9 7 0 - 7 5 p e r i o d , t h e m e t r o y ; o l i t a n a n n u a l a v s r a y c g r o w t h r a t e ( 0 . 7 p e r c e n t ) w a s a c - t u a l l y b e l o w t h a t of the r i a t i o n ( 0 . 9 p e r c e n t ) a n d w e l l b e l o w t h a t o f n o n m e t r o p o l i t - a n a r e a s ( 1 . 2 p e r c e n t ) . T h i s u n p r e c e d e n t e d r e v e r s a l w a s n o t s j - m p l y -the 1 . a t e s t m a n i f e s - t a t i o n o f u r b a n s p r a w l a r o u n d n e t r o p o l i . t a n a r e a s a s d e f i n e d i n

1 9 7 0 .

By t h e e n d o f 1 9 7 5 , t h e CEf i c e o f Lzl;j~~ageit~e~it a n d B u d g e t h a d a d d e d t w e n t y - n i n e S t a n d a r d b l e t r o p o l i t a n S t a t i s t i c a l A r e a s (SMSAs) t o t h e n u m b e r e x i s t i n g i n 1 9 7 0 , a n d many c o u n t i e s w e r e a d d e d t o t h e SMSAs a s d e f i n e d i n 1 9 7 0 . I n a d d i t i o n , t h i . r t s e n S t a n d a r d

C o n s o l i d a t e d S t a t i s t i c a l A r e t i s (SCSAs) w e r e n e w l y d e f i n e d i n 1 9 7 5 . T h e s e a r e l a r g e a g g l o m e r a t i o n s inade uy; o f a d j a c e n t SMSAs h a v i n g a c e r t a i n l e v e l o f i n t e r - c o m r n ~ . ~ t i n g a n d g e n e r a l l y s h a r i n g a c o n - t i n u o u s u r b a n m a s s . T h e y a r e d e s i g n a t e d o n l y i f o n e o f t h e a d j a c e n t SMSAs h a s a p o p u l a t i o n o f a t l e a s t o n e i n i l l i o n . SCSAs h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n d e f i n e d o n l y f o r

New

York a n d C h i c a g o .

An a n a l y s i s o f p o p u l a t i o n c h a n g c s i n t h i s new c o n t e x t i n d i - c a t e d t h a t t h e l a r g e s t SldSAs i n 1 9 7 0 - - - t h o s e w i t h over t w o m i l l i o n i n h a b i t a n t s - - e x p e r i e n c e d ilo g r o ~ t h a s a (,i-oup b e t w e e n 1 9 7 0 a n d 19'74.

CompaFisons f o , ~ tfie ^{C - c} , c . . ~ P - s w h i c h i n c l u d e t.hosc S M S A s show e s s e n - t i a l l y t h o s;ime p;,.e..cern. E i g h t . o f t h e f i f t e e n l a r g e s t SYSAs a r e e s t i m a t e d r.c>

he

l o s i n g pcjpc~lal: i o n , i i l c l u d i n g t h e f i v e l a r g e s t

( N e w Y o r k , 1 , c - i ~ H ~ l ~ j e 1 . e ~ ~ C h i c a g o , P h i l a d e l p h i a a n d D e t r o i t )

,

a n d o n l y t h e Da2.l.a~-.';'t., W;>rtl~ a r e a r 1 w 7 e x c e e d s t h e n a t i o n a l r a t e o f q r o w t h .

Gver

! . 7 m i l i i o ! ? more p e r s o n s moved o u t o f t h e f i f t e e n l a r g e s t . SMSi2s than n~olred i n d u r i n q t h e e a r l y 1 9 7 0 s ; t h e N e w York SPPISk a l i > ! i ~ > cl;lcc>urlted :t'ol: a n e t m i g r a t i o n l o s s o f h a l f a m i l l i o n p e r s o n s . Duriiig t h e 1960.; t - h c s e salne a r e a s g a i n e d a n e t o f 1 . I

~ n i l l . i o i : r i ~ ~ . g r a n . t s b u t i n t h e 1970--74 p e r i o d o n l y t h r e e g a i n e d

p o p u l a t i o n t h r o u g h m i g r a t i o n , w i t h the g r e a t e s t g a i n b e i n g b a r e l y

one

_{p c r} c e n t . S i ~ ~ c e 1970 t h e p c p u l z t i o n o f SMSAs w i t h f e w e r t h a n two r n i l l i o r i :i.i-il-ial-;lzdnt.s tias beer1 i n c r e a s i n g a t a b o u t t h e same r a t e a s ~ u i i ~ ~ i e " L : - c ~ ; : : ? ~ ? i i t a n I ? x , e r i c a , y e t t h i s i s w e l l b e l o w t h e i r r a t e (:)I= i.ric.:rr?a:sz (.':tn-in.? t h e 1 9 6 0 s ( U

.

S

.

B u r e a u o f t h e C e n s u s , 1 9 7 6 3 ,

The d a t a i:: T ; t b l . ~ :2 :p?-ovide f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e t h a t d e c e n t r a - l i z a t . i o n tei~de-r~r;.ii.s ax:+: at-. s i r ! ~ r j l y a m a t t e r o f e x t e n s i o n s j u s t beyorid m c t r c ~ ~ o l i ^!: a:icrlaL.;

-

. R e f e r r i n g t.o t h e s e d a t a , a l e a d i n g d e m o g r a p t ~ e i - p o i n t s o u t t h a t t-he m o s t d r a m a t i c n e t m i g r a t i o n c h a n g e s hav:! t a k e n p i & c s " i . i ~ t h o s e c o u n t i e s w i t h t h e l e a s t c o m ~ u t i n q t o m e . t . r o p o i i t a n a r e a s arid i n t h o s e c l a s s i f i e d r u r a l

nonadi

h c c n t

.

^Tha:t i-i>mpor:ent :->f c h a n g e , i n t h o s e t w o c a t e g o r i e s

cf

c~i:n";..ec:, c a r r i e d t h e c1e;i.i. e s t messacje: t h e more r e m o t e k i n d s o f ~lac:ei;.,--,-.those t h a t a s a, g r o u p usedl t o b e r e g a r d e d a s ' n o -

where ' ,-,.-have t o d a y become

'

somewhere

'

i n t h e m i n d s o f many migrants ( M o r r i s o n , 1 9 7 5 , p , 121 , "

R e g i o n a l . emp.1~-)yrnent c h a n g e d a t a l e n d f u r t h e r s u p p o r t t o t1.1i.s p o s i . t i o n . 'The 1.0~-11s o f f a s t e s t eniployrnent g r o w t h s h i f t e d f r o m suburba1.i c s ~ z n t i e s p r i o r t o t.hc 1 9 6 9 n a t i t ~ n a l . e c o n o m i c down- t u r n t.0 mi-;ae-i:ruy.~o! i t a . c c o u n t i e s t l : . ~ ~ ~ l ~ h ~ u t t h e 1 9 6 9 - 7 2 b u s i n e s s c y c l e , !4o-reover

,

rronrrret r o p o l i t a 1 1 g-rowth r a t e s w e r e h i g h e s t i n l e s s - d e : / e l o p e d r:

e:!

io3.3

,

ⁱ !.idin- Ldtiny l i l ~ a t employment d e c e n . t r a l i z a - t i o n w a s n m r e t h a n r.;i,:e ra.t:cr~pc;l i t a n s p i . l l o v e r (Nelsen a n d

P a t r i c k , 1 9 7 5 ) .

S?.mi?i.l.ar fii.1d.i. :v.j ; :: ,.:i+ r.:.;: c!bLaiaed f r o m a n a m l y s i s o f employ- m h r ? t change betv:.%%er'; i::e.:tr:m?:)e:- 3 1

,

1 3 6 9 a n d DecemSer 3 1

,

1 972 f o r

Table 2. Population Change for Groups of Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties, 1960-1970 and 1970-1973.

Source: P.A. Morrison, The Current Demographic Context of National Growth and Development. Santa Monica, Calif., Rand Corporation, September 1975, p. 10.

Data are from Richard L. Forstall, "Trends in

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Population Growth Since 1970,'' forthcoming; and Calvin L. Beale,

T h e R e v i v a l o f P o p u l a t i o n Growth i n N o n r n e t r o p o l i t a n

A m e r i c a ,

ERS-605 Economic Development Division,

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agri- culture, June 1975.

'SMSAS defined as of December 31, 1974, except in New England, where definitions in terms of entire counties have been sub-

stituted.

t

Population Category

United States Inside SMSAs l

(Metropolitan) Outside SMSAs

(Nonmetropolitan)

I n C o u n t i e s from w h i c h :

>

20% commute to SMSAs

-

10%-19% commute to SMSAs

<

10% commute to SMSAs

E n t i r e l y r u r a l c o u n t i e s n o t a d j a c e n t t o a n SMSA 2

2"~ntirely rural" means the counties contain no town of 2500 or more inhabitants.

Provisional 1973 Population

(000's) 209,851 153,350 56,500

4,099 9,683 42,719 4,401

Annual Population Growth

1970-1973 1.0 0.9 1.3

1.9 1.4 1.2 0.9

Rate

1960-1970 1.3 1.6 0.4

1 .O

0.7

0.3

-0.4

m e t r c j p v l j t a l l a n d :uiAah a l e a s ,

by

iriclclstry g r o u p . The g e o g r a p h i c u 1 1 i t s v f ^I y s i ² were tkie SMSA dnd n t s l ~ - SMSA ( k ! ~ r e d e f i n e d t o b e r u r a l ) c::jn~pc;r~ents o f A l l r e s ~ l o f E c b ~ i r ~ r n i c Anal. y s i s r e g i o n s , w h i c h b a s i c a l . 1 y a r e i a h o k nta~-l.;et a r e a s d e f i r i e d o n t h e b a s i s o f commut-

i n g p a t t e l n s . On L h t 3 b a s i s o f Dun arid B r a d s t r e e t d a t a f i l e s ,

t h e s;vdy f o ~ n d t h a t f i r m s r a r e l y ~ n o v e f r o m o n e r e g i o n t o a n o t h e r ; t h i s r u n s c o n t r a r y t o tkte p r e v a l e n t n o t i o n t h a t f i r m s move f r o m

one

a x - e c > ^tc, allc;the;- t o 1o;der c o s t s . F i r r n s t h e m s e l v e s s t a y w h e r e t h e y a r e p r e s e n t l y l c \ c a t e d o r e l s e go ~ ) u t of b u s i n e s s . I t i s e n t r e p r e n e u r s v,J-io move a n d s t a r t u p new f i r m s i n more f a v o r a b l e l o c a t i o n s , t i ~ c . u c ~ t l t h e l a t t e r may a l s o ~ : t . c e i v e new b r a n c h p l a n t s o f l a r g e c o m p a n i e s . . K l c ~ r o v e r . , t h e data p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 3

i n d i c a t r ? t h a t r.;1Cri-13(1-eneurs h a v e bct:n ~ e t h i n k i n g t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l l o c n t i c n p d ~ t e ~ n s d t ] . e a s t a s much a s o t h e r p e o p l e h a v e , a n d may- b e riare s o . R u r a l a r e a s

were

g r o w i n g much m o r e r a p i d l y t h a n m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s j ~ - - t h e e a r l y 1 9 7 0 s .

I',n i n i p a r t a n t c:,?i-i~iCl;i-s-:-i~a i i ~t h i s e ~ n p l o y m e i ~ t s h i f t i s i t ^{L : :} i s i.t s i m p 1 y a f e w l a r g e m a n u f a c - tcl~'e;:s ! uc 3 i + : : > r : r ~ m o t e l y t o f i n d c h e a p e r l a n d f o r si11ijl.e st.cr,.y ;..i.;:l~t::s, o r i s i t c o m p l e t e s o c i e t i e s m o : ~ i.l.;~:: rJ;ir, w i

t.k

stores a n d o f f i . c e s and a u t o r r ~ o h i l e

d e a l e r s a11d b o w l i r ! ~ ~ a l l e y s a n d a l l t h e o t h e r f o r m s of e n t e r p r i s e t h a t make u p a n i n t e g r a t e d economy?

1.n. p a r t i & l . r e s o l . u t i o n of t h i s q u e s t i o n , w e b r o k e t h e c o L l l p ( ~ n c ~ ~ ~ i : s o f c h a n g e in!:^:) m e t r o p o l i t - a n a n d r u r a l p a r t s f c ? ~ e a c h o f

our

f i v e i n d u s t r y t y p e s . The r e s u l t i s q u i t e c l e a r . A l l f o r m s o f a c t i v i t y a r e rno\;.ing e u - t - - - p a r t i c u l . a z . l y t r a d e a n d s e r v i c e . ~t would a p p e a r t - h a t , a s a. n a t i o n , w e a r e f i n d i n g ways t o l i v e 2nd work i n t h e c o u n t r y s i d e , a n d h a v e b e e n c a p i t a l i - z i n g on t h a t p o s s i b i l i t y f a r niore i n t h e p a s t f e w y e a r s t h a n i n t h e p r e v i i 3 u s few d e c a d e s ( A l l a m a n a n d B i . r c h , 19'75, p . 1 4 ) .

T h u s , i t is c l e a r that: cliallqes i n t h e ~ i ~ e t r c p o l i t a n - n o n - m e t r c p o l i t a l l s z t t lemenk p a t t e r r ~ of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s h a v e

s p o n t a n e o u s l y t a k e n t h e d i r e c t i o n advocates by m o s t p r o p o n e n t s of a n a t - i o n 2 1 p o i - i c y +I(! pi:.oi-note I L I ~ T P " b a l a n c e d g r o w t h " i n f a v o r o f nonmetrop:~.! itan a i r z i s . L i r 0 n i c a 1 . l . y ~ c a l l s f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f

a P r e s i d e : - ! t % Coouc!?li o - f r ) a g i o r l a i A d v i s e r s (c.ompar.,~ble t o t h e

P L " ; ? S C : , ~ Z " ? . ~ I S C ~ l o f E<.:.:-Ic~Tc ^: h d v i s e r s i a n d f o r effective r e g i o n a l econorrli, pr:! 1 ~tls ; t ~ l c i ) ' 5~ i e ~ i l i z s . , c ? b e c a u s e

of

r ~ p t r o p o l i t a n d e c l i n e

Table 3. Average Components of Employment Change for Metropolitan and Rural Areas by Industry, 1970-1972.

AGRICULTURE NET

CHANGE

IN- MIGRATION

1 .I%

0.1%

OUT- MIGRATION

-0.3%

-0.1%

BIRTHS 3.8%

5.0%

DEATHS EXPANSION CONTRACTION

-

^{7.7% 15.9% -16.5%}

-10.4% 18.1% - 1 4.3%

METRO

-

^3.6%

RURAL

-

^1.7%

MANUFACTURING

IN- MIGRATION

OUT- MIGRATION

-0.2%

-0.2%

NET CHANGE METRO -10.0%

RURAL

-

^5.5%

DEATHS EXPANSION CONTRACTION - 1 1.8% 9.1% -1 0.2%

-12.3% 11.3% - 8.1%

BIRTHS

OTHER INDUSTRY NET

CHANGE METRO

-

^2.7%

RURAL 0.2%

IN- MIGRATION

0.2%

0.5%

OUT- MIGRATION

-0.2%

-0.4%

BIRTHS 6.3%

6.9%

DEATHS EXPANSION CONTRACTION - 1 1.3% 15.0% - 1 2.7%

-13.7% 18.3% - 1 1.4%

TRADE NET

CHANGE METRO 2.7%

RURAL 14.0%

IN- MIGRATION

OUT- MIGRATION

-0.2%

-0.2%

DEATHS EXPANSION CONTRACTION -15.3% 15.1%

-

^7.9%

-1 6.7% 22.8% - 6.4%

BIRTHS

SERVICE NET

CHANGE METRO 1.6%

RURAL 8.3%

IN- MIGRATION

0.3%

0.2%

OUT- MIGRATION

-0.3%

-0.1%

BIRTHS DEATHS EXPANSION CONTRACTION 4.7%

-

7.1% 12.6% - 8.7%

9.2% -1 1.2% 20.9% -10.7%

TOTAL NET

CHANGE METRO

-

^3.9%

RURAL 1.5%

IN- MIGRATION

0.2%

0.3%

OUT- MTGaTTON

-0.2%

-0.2%

BIRTHS DEATHS EXPANSION CONTRACTION 5.6% -1 1.7% 12.0% - 9.8%

7.3% -1 3.6% 16.1% - 8.4%

Source: P.M. Allaman and D.L. Birch (19751, Components of Employment Change for Metropolitan and Rural Areas in the United States by Industry Group, ,

1970-72, 1nter-~rea Migration Project Working Paper No. 8 , Joint Center for Urban Studies of M.I.T. and Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

r a t h e r t.h;ir; metropo.l.it:an g r o w t h . The m a t t e r i s o n e o f t h e p o i i t i c s o f n:rrribers. About '73 p e r c e n t o f t h e n a t i o n ' s popu- l a t i o n st:..il! l i v e s i n SMSAs a n d t h e c o m b i n e d p o p u l a t i o n s o f t h e f i f t e e n l a r g e s t S M S A s ( 5 8 . 8 m i l l i o n i n 1 9 7 4 ) s t i l l i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e nonmet.ro1-,ol i.i:an t o t a l ( 5 6 . 4 m i l l i o n )

.

R e q i . o n a l P o l i c v : Wllat A r e t h e I s s u e s ? M e - t r o p c ) l i t a n Growtn .- . ---

Despite t i l e d e e l i r l e o r s t a g n a t i o n o f many o f t h e l a r g e s t SMSAs---chiefly i n t h e N o r t h e a s t a n d N o r t h C e n t r a l r e g i o n s - - m a n y s m a l l e r SMSAs---".- ~ , ~ i . n l y i n t h e S o u t h a n d W e s t - - c o n t i n u e t o grow a t v e r y r a p i d r a t e s . F o r e x a m p l e , b e t w e e n A p r i l 1 , 1970 a n d J u l y 1 , 1 9 7 4 , n ~ e t r o p o l . i t a n F l o r i d a g r e w by 1 9 p e r c e n t , A r i z o n a by 21 p e r cer.::.

,

sr3.d. t h e E.'I~:,~i:tai n S t a t e s a s a w h o l e by 15 p e r c e n t . T h i r t e e n SMSAs had ?i.c+~-t,l-l r a t . e s e x - e e d . i n g 20 p e r c e n t d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . Sever1 o f t h e s e a r e I . o c a t e d i n F l o r i d a a n d t w o e a c h i n C o l o r a d o , A r i z o n a a n d Texas.

Employaient &.rid. p o p ' u l a t i o n g r o w t h w e l l i n e x c e s s o f t h e riat.j..or;al r a t e i . i n p l i e s r a p i d i n m i g r a t i o n , w h i c h i n t u r n may l e a d t o d e t e r j - o r a t i o n . o f c ) v e r b u r d e n e d p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s , c o n g e s t i o n , housir;.i). s h a i - t a g e s , a n d l o c a l p r i c e i n f l a t i o n . To b e s u r e , many

l o c a l t I: ;ide:;lr~e:-i a n d c:)wner.s o f r e a l e s t a t e w i l l b e n e f i t f r o m g r o w t h a n d p r i c e i r , f l s L i o n , bu-l- a t . t h e e x p e n s e o f t r a n s f e r p a y m e n t s f r o m o t h e r s ?.n the l o c a l economy. F o r e x a m p l e , i n c r e a s e d r e n t s a n d I a l ~ d ; . > x i c e s d o n o t crea-te new w e a l t h o r i n c o m e ; t h e y r a t h e r r e f l e c t t h e i n c r e a s e d s c a r c i t y o f h o u s i n g a n d l a n d i n s i m p l e s u p p l y and deinarrd t.erms, a n d t h o s e who own t h e r e l a t i v e l y s c a r c e r e s o ? l r c e s g a i n a t t h e e x p e n s e o f t h o s e who d o n o t .

I n p r e s e n - t i n < , t h e c a s e f o r r a w i d l o c a l q r o w t h , r e a l e s t a t e d e v e l o p e r s f r e q u e n t l y a t t e m p t t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e i r p r o j e c t s w i l l i n c r e a s e t.he t a x h a s e , c r e a . k e more t r a d e f o r l o c a l b u s i n e s s ,

s t i m u l a t e new employment o p p o r t - u n i t i e s , a n d g e n e r a l l y i m p r o v e t h e economy o f t h e c;o1~x,unity. What t h e y n e g l e c t t o d i s c u s s a r e t h e f u l l social

costs

o f tP,.ssc: p r o j e c t s . P7hat w i l l r a p i d g r o w t h d o t o t h e community

'

s sc%loo!. r-ystem, p u b l i c s e r v . i c e s , p u b l i c u t i l i - t i e s , tr;:!nsport.a.:-:ion, ana r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s ? What w i l l i t

cost to meet the new demands resulting from growth? Most city and county officials have been too busy sorting out their day- to-day problems to have time to come to grips adequately with such questions. Nevertheless, they tend to be less willing than formerly to assume that new growth automatically brings new jobs and more tax benefits, reflecting the personal

experience of many taxpayers that the full costs required to accomodate growth can be more than the corresponding benefits.

Indeed, a large and growing number of places now have, or

are seriously considering, legal constraints on future growth.

Nonmetropolitan Growth --

Many factors have contributed to the decentralization of population and economic activity in recent years. Nonrnetropoli- tan areas with attractive natural amenities (good climate,

forests, lakes, mountains) have developed rapidly on the basis of tourism, recreation, second homes and retirement homes.

Numerous previously-marginal agricultural and mining areas have experienced vigorous expansion because of world-wide scarcities

in

the primary sector. Manufacturing activities have been decentralizing for some time to regions with abundant supplies of relatively cheap labor--though areas with large

minority populations, e.g. blacks, Indians, and Mexican-Americans-- have tended to be by-passed by this phenomenon. Tertiary activi- ties have decentralized in response to the movement of the people who represent their market. Moreover, improved transportation

(notably the Interstate Highway System) and communications systems have permitted movement to more remote places without significant loss of access to business and household opportunities elsewhere.

Indeed, the broader spatial framework in which peop1.e live and work makes it ever Inore difficult to distinguish between what is properly "rural" and what is properly "urban".

While on the surface the attractive blending of rural and urban lifestyles represents one of nonmetropolitan America's major successes, in many places growth is no longer regarded as an unmixed blessing. There has been substantial rethinking about

the ecologically damaging aspects of tourism, recreation, and second-home expansion, and even industrial development is no longer a sacred cow. Yet economic development may be needed if employment opportunities are to be extended to low-income persons.

In some regions, e.g. the Upper Great Lakes, northern New England, and the Rocky Mountains, a key issue appears to be how to bring about desirable development for the many rather than than preser- vation of a natural endowment for the benefit of an elite few.

However, with proper planning development need not necessarily be accompanied

by

air and water pollution or the devastation of natural beauty. Some areas may serve one use today and still be preserved for other uses later. For example, proper mining and timber production may be compatible with and even enhance recre- ation opportunities in the future. Thus development need not be discouraged, prcvidzd that industry adequately controls its wastes,

satisfactorily relates to existing land uses and esthetic qualities, and accounts to the communi-ty for the full social costs of its

activities.

---

Nonrnet.ropoli tail

-

Decline

It may be argued that attempts to stem th.e migration of workers from areas with little employment opportunity can be a serious drag

on

needed adaptation. On the other hand, the

selective nature of otltmigrati~n means that these areas tend to lose their inost vital people--the best workers, the young, the better educated. Moreover, in addition to the initial reduction

in employment (or, if the migrants were unemployed, the reduc- tion in transfer payments of a welfare nature) there may be adverse multiplier ef Eects. If outmigrati.on leads to ahsolute population decline the tax base will be decreased, leading in turn to higher average tax levels or to a deterioration in public service standards. In either case the area's attractiveness to industry is likely to be reduced. Marginal firms may leave the area, creating further adverse mu.ltiplier effects. The value of real estate may decline with depopulation, causing banks and other financial institutions to be more strict in granting credit.

Depopulatiol~ and decli.~irag purchasing power may also cause some

m a r k e t - o r i e n t e d p r o d u c e r s t o c u r t a i l p r o d u c t i o l l a n d c a u s e s t i l l more u n e m p l o y m e n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , when new j c ~ b o p p o r t u n i t i e s a p p e a r i n a l a g g i n g a r e a t h e r e o f t e n i s a r e t u r n moverrlent o f w o r k e r s who f r e a u e n t l y a r e more s k i l l e d t h a n t h e members o f t h e l o c a l work f o r c e ; t h e h d r d - c o r e ur-lemplolred n-lav, u n d e r s u c h c o n d i t i o n s , f i n d l i t t l e r e l i e f f o r t h e i r p r o b l e m s ( P a r r , 1 9 6 6 ) .

B e c a u s e n o t a l l n o n m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s h a v e s i g n i f i c a n t

g r o w t h p o t e n t i a l , it may b e more s e n s i b l e t o o r g a n i z e a n o r d e r l y r e t r e a t t h a n t o f a n f a l s e h o p e s f o r f u t u r e g r o w t h . P s r t s o f t h e G r e a t P l a i n s , f o r e x a m p l e , h a v e h a d h e a v y o u t m i g r a t i o n f o r

s e v e r a l d e c a d e s . A l t h o u g h t h i s phenomenon h a s b e e n .viewed w i t h a l a r m i n some q u a r t e r s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o c o m p a r e t h e P l a i n s a n d o t h e r r e l a t i v e l y p r o s p e r o u s a r e a s w i t - h h e a v y o u t - m i g r a t i o n t o t h e s i t u a t i o n i n a r e a s s u c h a s % h e M i s s i s s i p i

D e l t a a n d s o u t h T e x a s . I n t h e P l a i n s , f o r e x a m p l e , o u t m i g r a n t s g e n e r a l l y h a v e b e e n w e l l p r e p a r e d t o t a k e a i l - v a n t a y e o f e c o n o m i c o p p o r t u n i t i e s e l s e w h e r e . Of c o u r s e , t h e p o p u l a t i o n l e f t b e h i n d h a s a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f o l . d e r p e o p l e dnd i t i s o x t e n d i f f i c u l t t o m a i n t a i n e s s e n t i a l . s e r v i c e s f o r a w i d e l y d i s p e r s e d p o p u l a t i o n . iiowever, a y r i c u l t u r 2 i s v < . a b l e a n d t h e r e i s r e l a - t i v e l y 1 i t t l . e p o v e r t y . I n a d d i t i o n t o s a v i i i q s a n d f a r m income t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l ~ e income f r o m f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t t r a n s f e r p a y m e n t s . T h e r e a l s o a r e v i a b l e s m a l l t o w n s , t h o u g h t h e y p r o - b a b l y s h o u l d h e d e v e l o p e d a s s e r v i c e c e n t e r s f o r r u r a l h i n t e r - l a n d s r a t h e r t h a n a s g r o w t h c e n t e r s c a p a b l e o f h a l t i n g a n d e v e n r e v e r s i n g o u t m i g r a t i o n . I n c o n t r a s t , o u t m i g r a n t s f r o m p o o r

d e c l i n i n g a r e a s f r e q u e n t l y a r e n o t p r e p a r c d f o r j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s e l s e w h e r e . t 4 o r e o v e r , t l ~ e r e t u r n m i g r a t i o n p r o b I . e ~ n i n d i c a t e s

t h a t t h e b a s i c p r o b l e m i n t h e s e a r e a s i s u n d e r i n v e s t m e n t i n t h e i r human r e s o u r c e s . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t p u b l i c p o l i c y m e a s u r e s i n l a g g i n g r e g i o n s s h o u l d e m p h a s i z e a c t i v e manpower a n d human

r e s o u r c e p r o b l e m s . The n a t i o n may a l s o deem i t d e s i r a b l e t o a i d , i n t h e s e a r e a s , p e r s o n s whose p r o s p e c t s f o l e i t h e r l o c a l employ- ment o r f o r r e t r a i n i n g a n d m i g r a t i o n a r e n o t b r i g h t ; o l d e r w o r k e r s

i n p a r t i c u l a r would f a l l i n t o t h i s c a t e g o r y . Bu-t i t m u s t b e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t h e r e w e a r e t a l k i n g & b o u t w e l f a r e a n d n o t a b o u t e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t p o l i c y .

Metropo1i.ta.n Decline

-.----

Until. recently the United States has had almost no experi- ence with population stagnation or decline in large metropolitan areas. However, because large SllSAs have relatively high per capita incomes it is not likely that they will be faced with the same difficulties controntinq declining and economically lagging nonmetropolitan areas. Nevertheless it may be anticipated that they will face new problems as well as new opportunities.

They will have fewer young persons than today and thus fewer children in school. Decisions will have to be made con- cerning whether to reduce the number of teachers or increase the ratio of teachers to pupils, and whether to close some schools for economy or use school facilities and faculties for new community pLrposes. Because of their relative scarcity, young people may Lencfit from greater social and economic mobility.

But there also is a possibility that the preponderance of old people and limited

~ x p d l ~ s ~ a n

will serve to close opportunities to young people. Posslnly economic evolution will create more shocks because c h a ~ m e s in the local economy and occupational structure will take place more by substitutions and less by new

additions. In any

case the construction sector and activi- ties linked to it are likely to retrench. Minorities may be frustrated

by

a lack of new activities into which they can move

arid by

thz pre-emption of old activities. On the other hand, they may benefit from the lessening of competition for the older housing stock, which would allow the average family more space as well as lower rents. Decline or stagnation will also reauire fiscal adjustments at the local level. Whether and to what extent a disjunction takes place between revenues and

service costs will depend in large measure on the nature of socio-economic cnanges, for it must be emphasized that there will continue to be large exchanges of people among cities.

If the socio-economjc composition does not alter adversely it should be possible to adapt so that prosperity is maintained

(Alonso,

1973;

Morrison, 1975).

C e n t r a l C i t y - S u b u r b a n - D i s p a r i t i e s ^--

C o u n t l e s s b o o k s a n d a r t i c l e s h a v e beer1 w r i t t e n a b o u t t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e p o o r , t h e o l d , a n d r a c i a l m i n o r i t i e s i n c e n t r a l c i t i e s f r o m b e t t e r h o u s i n g , a n d m o r e , b e t t e r a n d f a s t e r - g r o w i n g e m p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n m e t r o p o l i t a n s u b u r b s . U r b a n r e n e w a l a n d a t t e m p t s t o r e f u r b i s h t h e g h e t t o s h a v e n o t b e e n a d e q u a t e r e s p o n s e s t o t h i s p r o b l e m . U n l e s s a g r e a t e r e f f o r t i s made t o g i v e g h e t t o r e s i d e n t s a c h a n c e t o l i v e i n s u b u r b a n l o c a t i o n s t h e y w i l l n o t h a v e a c c e s s t o t h e f u l l r a n g e o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e m e t r o p o l i s - - a n d i s t h i s a c c e s s w h i c h i s t h e h e a r t o f w h a t c i t i e s a r e a b o u t . I f s u b s t a n t i a l a n d s u s t a i - n e d p r o g r e s s w e r e made i n t h i s r e g a r d c e n t r a l c i t i e s m i g h t o n c e a g a i n b e made a t - t r a c t i v e t o a b r o a d e r s p e c t r u m o f p e o p l e . T h i s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e e n e r g y c r i s i s a n d a n a p p a r e n t t a s t e among y o u n g a d u l t s f o r l a t e r m a r r i a g e a n d f e w e r c h i l d r e n c o u l d p u t a b r a k e o n , a n d p e r h a p s e v e n r e v e r s e , t h e c e n t r i f u g a l t e n d e n c i e s d i s c u s s e d

e a r l i e r i n t h i s p a p e r ; i t a l s o c o u l d d o much t o o v e r c o m e e x i s t i n g n e e d s a n d f i s c a l c a p a c i t y i m b a l a n c e s b e t w e e n c e n t r a l c i t i e s a n d s u b u r b s . C l e a r l y we a r e s t i l l a l o n g way f r o m o r g a n i z i n g e f f e c - t i v e l y t o a t t a i n niore r a t i o n a l s u b u r b a n d e v e l o p i n e n t a.nd t o b r i n g a b o u t s o l u t i o n s f o r c e n t r a l c i t y - - s u b u r b a n c o n f l i c t s . A l t h o u g h t h e i s s u e s h a v e b e e n s h a r p e n e d i n r e c e n t y e a r s a n d h a v e b e e n g i v e n w i d e p u b l i c i t y , t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t h a s shown a m a r k e d p r e d i l e c t i o n f o r h a v i n g s t a t e a n d l o c a l p r o b l e m s d e a l t w i t h a t t h e s e l e v e l s . T h u s , f o r now t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h s t a t e s a n d

c o m m u n i t i e s c a n b e a n d w i l l b e r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e p r o b l e m s r a i s e d h e r e r e p r e s e n t s a f u n d a m e n t a l t e s t o f A m e r i c a n d e m o c r a c y .

P u b l i c P r e f e r e n c e s

The r e s u l t s o f a t t i t u d i n a l s u r v e y s d a n o t r e p r e s e n t v o t e s o n s p e c i f i c i s s u e s b u t t h e y d o p i o v i d e i n s i g h t s i n t o p u b l i c a w a r e - n e s s o f t h e m . I n r e c e n t y e a r s a number o f p u b l i c o p i n i o n s u r v e y s h a v e i n d i c a t e d t h a t c o n c e r n a b o u t p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n i s w i d e - s p r e a d a n d i s f e l t b y r e s p o n d e n t s f r o m a l l s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c l a s s e s , l i v i n g i n a v a r i e t y o f g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n s ( e . g . M a z i e a n d

R a w l i n g s , 1 9 7 2 ; F u g u i t t a n d Z u i c h e s , 1 9 7 5 ; Z a i c h e s a n d F u g u i t t , 1 9 - 7 6 ) .

The most recent report available at: this writing (Zuiches and Fuguitt, 1976) suggests that a majority of respondents favored discouraging urban industrial growth; however, from two-thirds up to 90 per cent supported various specific programs for

improving the quality of life in nonmetropolitan areas. This survey was based on data obtained in late 1972, at which time many of the largest SMSAs already were declining and there was posi-tive net migration to nonmetropolitan areas. Were survey respondents reacting to the actual situation in late 1972 or were they resp~nding to widespread publicity still given to rapid

metropolitan growth and concomitant rural stagnation and decline?

Or did (and ds) people bell-eve that big cities are too big even though they

m a y

n ~ t be growing?; 2nd that nonmetropolitan areas need more suy'port

even

thouqh

they

may be growing? To complicate matters

f u r ~ i i e r ,

the abso.lute~rowth

- . - - - -

of population in SMSAs

between 1970 and 1975 was greater than that in nonmetropolitan areas, even though the

.-

growth

- -- -- - --

rate was substantially less (see Table 'I); whatevtir the significance of this phenomenon, it undoubtedly was not pondered by the typical survey respondent.

All that can be said about the relevant survey findings is that people say they bel-ieve that spatial distribution issues are important even if their perception of changing distribution

patterns

is

imperfect. But can governments respond to "public prsferences" under such conditions? One of the major conclusions to a study of regional. policies in nine Western Countries was that "what is needed most from the whole range of persons con- cerned with regional policies is not hasty selection of general

'goals,' but a be-tter elucidation of what the problems really are (Hansen, 1974)." This also appears to be the case in the present context.

The Federal Budget

Even though the federal yoverimtent does not have

a

consi.stent, coherent recjional development

policy,

there no douht are many

unplanned consequences

of

the

concentration

of federal outlays in

particular places.

IrL

the South, for example, such projects as

t h e T e n n e s s e e Vall..e;7 Ac! t l - : o r i t y , t h e M c C 1 s l l a n . - K e r r Waterway ( t h e l a r y e s t aild r r ~ o s t e:cper;sive p r o j e c t e v e r u n d e r t a k e n by t h e U . S

.

Army C o r p s o f E i ? g i ~ ~ e e r , i ; ) , Cape C a r ~ a i i e ~ a l , t h e H e d s t o n e A r s e n a l a n d t h e J o h n s b n S p a c e C e n t e r h a v e had s u b s t a n t i a l l o c a l g r o w t h i m p a c t s . S t a l s . ~ ~ h a s b z e n a r g u e d t h a t hy f d v o r i i l g r e l a t i v e l y low-incfime states, f e d e r a l c a t e g o r i c a l g r a n t p r o g r a m s h a v e o n

b a l a n c e b e i - ~ e f i t t e d t h e S o u t h , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e t h e y f a i l t o c o r r e c t f o r l o w e r '1.ivl.izy c o s i : ~ i n t h i i t r e g i o n . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e tllal; ft::il.rral i s i v e s t r n e n t s i n huinan r e s o u r c e s h a v e b e e n r e 1 . a t i v e l . y low i n l a g g i n g r e g i o n s (Hanselz, 197'1

,

p p . 71 - 7 5 ;

Committ?e, 1 9 7 1 ) . Y e t . a n o t h e r s t u d y fourzd -kl-iat- " h o w e v e r u n i n t e n - t i o n a l f s d e r a l s p e n d i n g h a s m o s t b e n e f i t t e d the more r e m o t e r e a c h e s of t h e n a t . i o i ~ ; " t h e 5d:ile s t u d y n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n c l u d e d t h a t e v e n t h o u g h :it was i~~.it..ia.-i:.t-d on t h e a s s u m p t i c j n t h a t t h e f e d e r a l b u d g e t '!had becorn? sc. , l a ~ i j c t h a t t h e f e d e r a l o u t l a y s were o f s u f f i c i e n t i m p o r t a r : c e t.o ~-er!~;*ke i he i?c=onomic q e o y r a p t ~ y " o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t h i s a s s u r i ~ p t i . u n "1-:as iiol b e e n c o ~ f i r i ~ ~ e d by t h e a n a l y s i s . The low c o r r e l a t i . 9 r - i ~ l > c ; ~ - i . , i ~ : e l l izi.::?ra? 7 o u t l a y s aizd p o p u l a t . i o n g r o w t h ~ n d p e r c a p i t s illco..i1<2 i d e r c r l i s a p p o i r : t i n g . Hi.911 p e r c a p i t a f e d e r a l

.

-

o u t l a y s a.r,+ ni.::. I~!ec..~:..;s~.r1. ! y a p r e r e y i l i . s i t \ ; , f o r g r o w t h o r h i g h income l . ~ i . ~ ~ e l : : ~ I-LC>::-

-::,

k!-lcir pj:eser!i:c a n e s s u r a n c e o f t h e i r o c c u r e n c e ( C r o w n i ncj . i 9 7 3

,

p. 6 2 ⁾

.

"

Uilans-wered _.---. ~ ( 2 1 ; ~ ~ : ~ t i r.,, - ^t-;

T o su!'i, u p t l x ? .:.si-!l:rnei.::.t s o far, i t w o i ~ l d a p g e a r t h a t r e g i o n a l d e v e l o p m e r i t pr o c e s s e : ; , 2:; (.1~11 a s t h e impact. o f f e d e r a l o u t l a y s upoil thern, ;!-tr;. v e r y iii~i.)erfei:t l y ! ~ i ? d e r s k o o i i . Q u e s t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i o r i s h j p I:i<;ti~dcl~ c i t y :;'ixe arid e c o n o m i c e f f i c i e i ~ c y a l s o a r e f a r

from

Gej ; - i c l ~ e s o l v e d (!.?era, 1 9 7 3 ; S"\;t?i!;au:;ka.s, 1 9 7 5 ; G i l b e r t , 19'76j Alt.hough s l ? r . ? e y r e s u l k s i n d i c a t e t h a t c o n c e r n a b o u t ht:rli.an se t t l e n i e n t p a t t e r nr i s w i d e s p r e a d , a l m o s t n o t h i n g i s known ?;:)out the p r i . o r i t j e s p e o p l ? a t t a c h t o s p a t i a l d i s t r i - b u t i o n i s s u e s i n : r e l a t i a n t o o t h e r s o c i a l aiid e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m s . M o r e o v e r , it may b c m o r e a d v i s a b l e t o a t t d c k many p r o b l e m s

d i r e c t l y r a t h 2 r than b y t r y i n g t o a l t e r t h e s i z e s o f p l a c e s . F o r e x a n ~ p l e , a c t i o n c a n b e t a k e n t o e l - i i n i r i a t e a i r p o l l u t i o n by

p r o h i b i t i o n s o f n o x i o u s a c t i v i t i e s o r by t a x e s ; t h e s e d e v i c e s a r e f l e x i . b l e e n o u g h t o p e r m i t e x p e r i m e n t s t h a t would b e re-

v e r s i b l e , i n c o n t r a s t t o s t r a t e g i e s t h a t would c h a n g e c i t y s i z e . O t h e r p r o b l e m s a r e l a r g e l y p o l i t i c a l a n d s o c i a l r a t h e r t h a n

p h y s i c a l .

F i n a l l y , a common t h e m e i n p r o p o s e d s p a t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t s t r a t e g i e s i s t h e n o t i o n o f " b a l a n c e d " g r o w t h o r a " b a l a n c e d "

d i s t r i b u t i o n o f employment. However, w h a t t h i s means i s r a r e l y s p e c i f i e d i n more c o n c r e t e terms. Does i t mean t h a t e q u a l i t y o f p e r c a p i t a p u b l i c i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , i n c o m e , o r e c o n o m i c a c t i v i t y

( h o w e v e r d e f i n e d ) s h o u l d b e t h e g o a l ? S h o u l d t h e g r o w t h o f l e s s - d e v e l o p e d r e g i o n s b e p r o m o t e d s o l e l y by moving r e s o u r c e s t o them o r e x p l o i t i n g more f u l l y r e s o u r c e s w i t h i n t h e i r bound- a r i e s ? P r e c i s e l y w h a t p u b l i c and p r i v a t e a c t i v i t i e s s h o u l d b e l o c a t e d i n v a r i o u s t y p e s o f c i t i e s a n d r e g i o n s ? What e f f e c t s w i l l t h e l o c a t i o n o f v a r i o u s t y p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s i n a g i v e n r e g i o n h a v e o n o t h e r r e g . i o n s a s a r e s u l t o f i n d u c e d a c t i v i t i e s

( o n b o t h t h e s u p p l y a n d denland s i d e s ) o f a n i n t e r r e g i o n a l n a t u r e ? What c o n f l i - c t s mi9h.t a r i s e b e t w e e n m a x i m i z i n g r e g i o n a l a n d

n a t i o n a l w e l f a r e , a n d how s h o u l d t h e y b e r e s o l v e d ? U n t i l q u e s - t i o n s s u c h a s t h e s e a r e a n s w e r e d , t h e a p p e a l t o b a l a n c e i s n o t o p e r a t i o n a l l y f e a s i b l e .

G i v e n t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s o u t l i n e d h e r e , it i s h i g h l y q u e s - t i o n a b l e w h e t h e r p o l i c y m a k e r s s h o u l d a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e

w h e r e p e o p l e s h o u l d l i v e o r w h e r e e c o n o m i c a c t i v i t i e s s h o u l d b e i o c a t e d .

R e a i o n a l D e v e l o ~ m e n t a s a L e a r n i n a E x p e r i e n c e

T h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t i s s u e s o f t e r r i t o r i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s h o u l d s i m p l y b e i g n o r e d by t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t . I n d e e d , I b e l i e v e i t would b e d e s i r a b l e a n d f e a s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h a

R e g i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t Agency a t t h e n a t i o n a l l e v e l . S u c h a n a g e n c y s h o u l d b e a t t a c h e d t o t h e W h i t e House a n d b e i n d e p e n d e n t o f a n y C a b i n e t member, who m i g h t g i v e m a j o r a t t e n t i o n t o h i s own r e l a t i v e l y n a r r o w o b j e c t i v e s a n d p r o g r a m s a n d t h e n t r y t o

f o r c e - - w h e t h e r c o n s c i o u s l y o r u n c o n s c i o u s l y - - t h e a c c o m o d a t i o n

of other departments' programs to his own interests. The RDA should not adopt a narrow focus on problems of "distressed" areas nor should it get caught up in broad but operationally meaningless attempts to achieve "balanced" geographic growth. Rather, it

would be more reasonable and more effective to permit flexible approaches to a wide variety of regional situations. Stimulation of economic growth may be a feasible policy for some lagging

areas with genuine growth potential; other situations may call for measures which ease adaptation to stagnation or decline;

and still other situations may call for better control or mana- gement of growth.

Initially the RDA may be viewed as an investment in a learn- ing process. Better understanding of development processes is a necessary precondition for formulating specific, effective re- gional policies. Similarly, much more knowledge is needed

concerning the expected consequences of interregional migration and the magnitudes of the externalities associated with migration.

As a recent major review of research on migration in the United States points out, the extensive literature dealing with the determinants of migration is "almost completely devoid of direct policy implications (Greenwood, 1975, p. 421)."

Another function of the RDA could be that of monitoring

government expenditures. Attempts should be made to disaggregate the federal budget along regional as well as program and project lines. The regionalizatlon of the French budget has proven

useful both in providing information for analyzing regional needs and in controlling the implementation of regional objectives;

careful investigation of the successes and shortcomings which have marked this effort over the past decade should prove in- structive. By examining the territorial dimensions of the vast array of complex and sometimes conflicting federal programs, the RDA could promote a more equitable distribution of federal outlays. There often are good reasons for concentrating given

funds in certain areas, but even so it would be desirable to evaluate whether some areas and institutions are being unduly

favored as a result of a self-perpetuating, self-justifying

system. The favored position maintained by some states, cities,

and institutions may have more to do with their know-how in manipulating federal agencies than with considerations of efficiency or need.

A flexible national territorial distribution policy might best be implemented through a comprehensive system of multistate regional comrni.ssions comparable to that created for the Appalachian regional development program. In this sense a regional commission would not., strictly speaking, be a federal agency but a cooperative vent~.lre in which the states and the federal. government participate as equals. Each commission would be composed of the relevant

governors ior their representatives) and a federal co-chairman appointed by the President. Regional, state, and substate multi- county planning areas--which have been delineated now in nearly all states--would each have their own responsibilities. The regl.onal cow~~ission, in cooperation with the RDA, would assess regional problems and oppor.tunities and be concerned with formu- lating regional programs, planning for public infrastructure, encouraging interstate cooperation, and undertaking social and economic analyses. The States would be responsible for devel- oping long run programs and annual project plans geared to each substate planning area. The latter would be responsible for comiunicating local needs and aspirations to the states, identi- fying priority I..ocal development projects, and coordinating their local execution.

Through the vehicle of regional comissions it would be possible to have state and local officials and leaders prepare programs t.hat worild be federally-financed, but to preserve

at the same time a federal veto over programs and projects that would Se contrary to efficient resource allocation from

a

national perspective. Of course, some modifications would have to be made with respect to the last stipulation because regional policies of-ten are the product of grievances--real or imagi~ed-- whose satisfaction is not amenable to solutions based solely

on national economic efficiency arguments. Still it would be undesirable to abandon economic efficiency altogether when confronted with goals of a largely socio-political nature.

Gordon Cameron correct..ly points out t-hat:

although polltlcal pressures (jive recl l o l l d l pollcy ~ t s main justification and ~ t s ever-chanijlng vitalltir,

efficiency arguments are never far beneath the surface.

There are two possible meanlngs of

efficiency

in this context. The first is concerned with questions of how to devise regional policies which maximise the growth in real

G.N.P.,

probably with a long-term perspective in mind. The second is concerned with using public resources and public policies in such a way that the goals of regional policy are achieved efficiently.

l'his might imply a rule of mi.nimurn social costs for the achievement of a given "quantun" of regional goals

(Cameron, 1 9 7 4 ) -

Again though we are in a sphere where lack of knowledge makes it difficult to be conffdent about thz precise ends and means of regional programs. In any event, the RDA should not itself try to sit in judcjment wit11 respect to the conflicting and sometimes self-serving demands of local areas. This function belongs to established 1politi.cu1 institutions and pl-ocesses;

any attempt to assume it by the KDA would no doubt result

in

its rapid demise. However, if the RDA could fulfil the more modest tasks proposed here, it would have inade a major contri- bution to opening

new

possibilitiss for dealing more rationally with problems related to the structure and evolution of human

settlement systems ; and to crc2-. aking efficiently more equal access to social and econcj~nj c (-1upor1::lnities for the whole of the national population.